Soft on Defense?

What to do while waiting for journal articles to download from the web? I know I'll blow off steam on the blog!

The latest Republican attack adds are going after Kerry for supposed opposition to military appropriations in Iraq.

However two recent events put this accusation in some perspective. First, the Bush administration ridiculous under-estimation of costs for Iraq. They asked for $5 Billion when everyone knows the forces in Iraq need something more like $150 Billion. The Bush administration doesn't want to ask for that much until after the election because it will look bad in the media. Playing politics with military appropriations? How is that patriotic? At least Kerry's votes were supported by his claims of concern for budgetary responsibility (Democrats are tax and spend but Republicans are borrow and spend).

Second, when the Marines got into a fire fight in Fallujah today the military spokesmen said, the Marines "fought like lions" and some reports said the Marines were "out gunned." Why would the Marines be out gunned by a militia made up of "dead enders" and recent arrivals from radical movements around the Middle East? I suggest it goes back to Rumsfeld's insistence that the military do more with fewer troops. One might go on to suggest that the low numbers of troops in Iraq actually invites violent resistance because there are so many unprotected supply convoys, pipe lines, etc.

So here we have an administration that went into Iraq with too few troops to protect supply lines and maintain order behind the battle zone, etc (a disproportionate number of the casualties back before the "Mission Accomplished" banner, were supply and logistics people) accusing their opponents, who nearly unanimously call for more troops being sent, of being "soft on defense." If so many lives weren't at stake it would be hilarious.